Delhi

East Delhi

CC/955/2014

DINESH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRAKASH AUTO - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 955/14

DINESH MANDAL,

S/O Sh. KISHAN MANDAL,

R/O R-7, BLOCK MNORS HARI NAGAR JETPUT, BADARPUT,

1.  

 

Vs

 

1. PRAKASH AUTO DEALS,

OFF-S-222, PANDAV NAGAR COMPLEX,

NALA SERVICE ROAD OPP-AKSHARDHAM MANDIR

1.  

2. PARBAS (PROPERITER OF PARKAASH AUTO DEALS)

VILL- MADHIA POST- BHATOLIA, THANA- KOTVA,

DISTIRICT- PURVE- CHAMPARAN MOTIHARI BIHAR.

3. GOOD MAN AUTO DEAL

756/198, SATNAM ROAD,

JHEEL, DELHI-110051.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    ….Opponents

Date of Institution: 14.10.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 19.02.2018

Judgment Passed on: 19.02.2017

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

ORDER BY: Mr. SUKHDEV SINGH (PRESIDENT)

JUDGEMENT

Complainant Dinesh Mandal, purchased vehicle No. DLR-1K-6110 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by making down payment of Rs.60,000/- from respondent. He was to pay installment of Rs.7,700/- per month, he paid all the installments. However, he was surprised when in the month of May the officer of respondent no.3 visited on the house of the complainant and asked him to make the installments, he immediately sent to the office of respondent no.1 and discussed that he will pay the installments to respondent No. 1 & 2, but they directed him to pay a further installments to respondent No.3. He made further two installments to respondent no.3. It has been stated that respondent no.3 has started making a legal demand, this act of respondent has been said to be illegal , uncalled, unwarranted and against the principle of natural justice. The act of the respondent have caused mental pain and suffering to the complainant. Hence, he has prayed for issuance of NOC of vehicle bearing no.KLR1K6110, compensation for harassment sum of Rs. 80,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.15,000/-.

In the reply filed on behalf of “Good Man Auto Deal” (OP-3), they have stated that the TSR bearing Registration No. DL-1RK-6110, hypothecated with M/S Vikas Auto Centre was a commercial vehicle. On 04.09.2011         Sh. Prabhash Kumar respondent No.2 got financed vehicle from respondent No.3 for a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-@ interest 14% per annum which was payable in 36 equal installments of Rs.10,650/-. The total outstanding of Rs.3,83,400/- and first installment was due on 25.10.2011, loan agreement was executed by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 handed over form No.29,30, signed by registered owner i.e. Shri Raju who has not been made as a party. The complaint was said to be not maintainable due to non joinder of necessary party. The complainant was not a consumer as he neither purchased the vehicle nor has taken finance from respondent no. 3, there was no deficiency on their part. Thus, they have stated that the complaint be dismissed.

OP-1 & OP-2 was not served and the complaint proceeded in the absence of any service to them. Though, they have not been served, but have to be seen as to whether there was no liability of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 on merit.

Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant where he controverted the pleas taken by respondent no.3 and have reasserted his plea taken in the complaint.

In support of his complaint he examined himself on affidavit. He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. In defence “Good Man Auto deal” (OP-3) examined Shri Anil Sethi  who has deposed on affidavit. He has narrated the facts stated in the written statement. He has also got exhibited copy of the agreement as Ex. OPW3/A, sale letter as Ex. OPW3/B.

We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-3. It has been stated on behalf of OP-3 that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and them. He has further stated that the loan was advanced to Shri Prabhash Kumar who got the agreement executed. On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the complainant stated that they have made the payment to “Good Man Auto deal” (OP-3). To appreciate the averments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has made to the testimony of the complainant, testimony of Shri Anil Sethi (OP-3) and the documents placed on record. If we look to the agreement as Ex.OPW3/A, it is noticed that agreement has been made between Sh. Anil Sethi, Proprietor of “Good Man Auto deal” and Sh. Prabhash Kumar, however, form 30 has been executed by Sh. Raju who is the registered owner of vehicle no. DLR-1K-6110. Thus, from the two documents it is evident that complainant has not taken loan from “Good Man Auto deal” (OP-3). By merely placing on record a receipt showing a payment made which is without any name does not show relationship between the complainant and “Good Man Auto deal” (OP-3). Thus OP-3 was not having any relationship with complainant who has alleged to have got the vehicle financed from them. Not only that perusal of the complaint does not show any deficiency on the part of any of respondents. When, no deficiency on the part of OP-3 as well as OP1 and OP-2 have been made out, the complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 

(Dr.P.N.TIWARI)                                                        (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                  

      MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER      

 

 

                                         (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                PRESIDENT